Possibly tracing, or possibly just somebody really good at following official guidelines . JLG-L did all the guide sheets for how DC characters were "supposed" to look.

insert obligatory rant about how artists these days should pay more attention to his guidelines

I would have said just guidelines but the poses look familiar and the bodies look very JLG-L. It's just the faces that are off.

I like his work but am glad artists are given more freedom now. I mean at one point they redrew Jack Kirby's work because he didn't fit their house style. Why the fuck would they hire Jack Kirby and then redraw his work?!?

If the Elseworlds concept had been around in 1970, DC could have just said "Here's a non-continuity book Jack... just go crazy." It would have been awesome

(Technically, as DC had the idea of alternate Earths anyway, it could still have happened. But they never really did things in that way. there was no equivalent of the Ultimates Universe in the 70s.)

It bothers me that they felt the need for force everyone into a house style back then though. So much so that they had some uncredited artist redrawing the faces of one of (if not the) the top comic artist of the day. Why does it matter that Kirby drew his face a little different? That has more to do with style than how Superman actually looks. That was never much of an issue at Marvel as no one drew like Kirby.

I think Stan Lee used to urge his artists to emulate Kirby, though, to keep to a "house" style. I'm sure I've read it in Stan's own words (possibly in a Masterworks introduction? Can't remember), and there's this from John Buscema's wiki page:

In order to adapt to the Marvel Comics style of superhero adventure, Buscema "synthesized the essence of [Jack] Kirby's supercharged action figures, harrowing perspectives, monolithic structures, mega-force explosions, and mythological planetscapes into a formula that he instantly integrated into his own superbly crafted vision," wrote comics artist and historian Jim Steranko.

Hmm, ok, he's actually saying he had his own formula rather than aping Kirby

That Bruce would have ended up being more like the original, gun-toting Batman.

Can we put an end to this myth of "the original, gun-toting Batman"? One panel. One panel in the 40s when Batman shot someone, and suddenly it's ok to have a grim and gritty Batman because "we're taking him back to his origins". No you're not!!! You're taking him back to a one-panel aberration, ignoring the three billion other panels from the 40s where he's laughing, punning, and horsing around while giving the thugs a sound (but fair) thrashing.

That Bruce would have ended up being more like the original, gun-toting Batman.

Can we put an end to this myth of "the original, gun-toting Batman"? One panel. One panel in the 40s when Batman shot someone, and suddenly it's ok to have a grim and gritty Batman because "we're taking him back to his origins". No you're not!!! You're taking him back to a one-panel aberration, ignoring the three billion other panels from the 40s where he's laughing, punning, and horsing around while giving the thugs a sound (but fair) thrashing.

Sorry, have to get that out of my system occasionally

I once saw Frank Miller at a comic-con panel and one of the things he said about Batman really stuck with me. He said the reason Batman is so popular and works so well is that you can throw him up against the wall in so many ways and it just works. From Dark Knight Returns to Adam West's portrayal, there are tons of flavors of Batman and you'll find staunch defenders of all of them. Some even cling to more than one contradictory version. It's why I hate the "That's not my..." sentiment so much.

I agree with that, Ronnie (you might be surprised to hear ). There's a place for a grim Batman. But justifying it by saying "it's back to his roots" is demonstrably wrong, no matter how many times the line gets trotted out.

I've just finished reading the Golden Age Batman Omnibus, and it's the very opposite of grim

There's a place for a grim Batman. But justifying it by saying "it's back to his roots" is demonstrably wrong, no matter how many times the line gets trotted out.

So would you disagree with Denny O'Neil when he said that he was taking him back to his gritty roots (though admittedly less so than Miller and others would take him) when he and Adams took over? I was in the room when that was said as well.

That Bruce would have ended up being more like the original, gun-toting Batman.

Can we put an end to this myth of "the original, gun-toting Batman"? One panel. One panel in the 40s when Batman shot someone, and suddenly it's ok to have a grim and gritty Batman because "we're taking him back to his origins". No you're not!!! You're taking him back to a one-panel aberration, ignoring the three billion other panels from the 40s where he's laughing, punning, and horsing around while giving the thugs a sound (but fair) thrashing.

Sorry, have to get that out of my system occasionally

Who said anything about grim and gritty? I'm talking about a Batman comfortable with using guns, which is not mutually exclusive with him laughing, punning or horsing around. It also wasn't only one panel. He only shot someone in one panel but he used/fired guns multiple times back then. He also killed people more than once, such as the end of the Monster Men storyline where he hangs one of them.